Whether grammatical or errata-invoking, FFG has quite a rep for rampant typos. I just picked up Rex today, thumbed through it, and was rather impressed with the solid rules of play. Then I stumbled upon page 11, 8th paragraph down:

"A player cannot deploy units into a sector under bombardment..."

Not trying to dis here; I am a huge fan. Many of my dollars are funding the monthly electrical consumption of Christian Peterson's jacuzzi. It just seems that no matter how diligent they are, their proofreaders nod off at some point and hold down a shift key (right before that trip to the printer).

I can't say that I have ever seen a partially bold(ed) typo before. So, kudos in that respect. The age old saying is true: there is no gamer in grammar. But dang close this time, fellas!

Ah, the bold. I, too, was confused. At first I thought this post was joking since that quote seems to be one of the rare examples of the usually correct "cannot" versus "can not" that seems to be more common on Internet posts.

There is a second instance of this same formatting issue on page 15, paragraph 7.

Also, I believe the definition of typo encompasses and includes formatting. The various sources I used to confirm this all included mechanical failures and/or any mistake (no matter the type).

Lastly, I am not burning my bra here. I simply am amused at how gaming companies, no matter the size, no matter the resources, generally drop the ball in this specific capacity, time and time again. As a bit of a word nerd I find it funny, esp. when people are credited proofreaders that simply failed at their charge.

Look at the Forbidden Alchemy debacle; yowza! I bought that 3 plus months ago and still have yet to play it. I was one of the first to post that a card was listed in the Keeper Guide that did not exist. Corey K. jumped in to clarify, and typed the wrong name again (this time an entirely new card that didn't exist)! This obviously has instigated change, as the ability to comment on many of the posts on FFG have been disabled. Couple this with their recent acquisition of a Technical Writer, and I think it shows some effort, at least, to rectify these mistakes moving forward.

Anyway, the game looks fantastic. I look forward to playing it, as I am a fan of Dune. This partially bolded nonsense isn't a huge deal by any means, esp. in lieu of the aforementioned ball dropage. At least there is a consistent use of the Oxford comma in this game!

Another oops on page 16 in the example of the Influence Phase. They use the numeric value (10) to describe Influence placement in one sector then the written value (eight) for another, both in the same sentence.

Just the formatting, which, weirdly, they caught it in time for the pdf rulebook.

If you want, you can go over the "cann" with an extra-fine sharpie. Or just always use the pdf, which is what people should be doing anyways, since it's searchable.

You would go over the "cann" with a sharpie or use a PDF simply because it's in bold?

OOOOOkay.

No, I would use the pdf because they're fast and convenient and every player can simultaneously check the rules. Whether anyone else should use a sharpie or pdf depends on how much they care about partially bolded text. In my defense, here we are participating in a thread about it.

Another oops on page 16 in the example of the Influence Phase. They use the numeric value (10) to describe Influence placement in one sector then the written value (eight) for another, both in the same sentence.

The horror!

Newspaper style -- less than 10, written; 10 or greater, numeral. Makes me wonder if someone at FFG was a journalist.

I am aware of this precedent, but it comes across as inconsistent in this medium. They do not follow this as a style guide, as it changes from product to product, as does the Oxford comma usage. I know Steve Kimball is a highly-skilled grammarian, so perhaps this is in fact the case. If so, then the embarrassment rests squarely on my shoulders.

Another oops on page 16 in the example of the Influence Phase. They use the numeric value (10) to describe Influence placement in one sector then the written value (eight) for another, both in the same sentence.

The horror!

Newspaper style -- less than 10, written; 10 or greater, numeral. Makes me wonder if someone at FFG was a journalist.

I learned it this way in school. It has sense bugged me when people type out, "In the last 2 days it has rained." I've never seen someone trying to type out numbers larger than 11, though, but I'm sure that'd look weird, too.

My joke was just that, a joke and not meant to hurt anyone's feelings, but I should consider that FFG does have proofreaders and that my joke is certainly at their expense.

Please understand that I am a huge FFG fan, and that after years of errata, FAQS, misprints, ambiguities, missing or incorrect components, questionable playtesting, and the like I've had enough. Some would call my behavior that of a spoiled, entitled troll, but I could easily call them apologists who are giving FFG a pass. Let's face it, FFG gets a lot of love for the awesome stuff they put out and the geek niche it fills, but would we really accept this level of service from another company?

This is a minor mistake and rather insignificant. According to a few posters in this thread, the Rex rulebook is well done and has few errors, so the proofreaders did a good job in this case. But, poor proofing and quality control is systemic for FFG. I feel bad for calling them out when many FFG employees are awesome members of this community. I certainly wouldn't want to read a thread detailing how badly I screwed up at my own job today, especially if I felt like the critics were cherry-picking or being unfair.

But, I'm not being unfair. Here's an example pulled cherry-picked from a thread about the Mansions of Madness expansion:

salty53 wrote:

Have a look at these gems from the errata. Note that these two corrections are listed consecutively in the errata and refer to consecutive Events from the same scenario, and I have made no changes save to bold one word for emphasis:

The Errata wrote:

Event Card III: This card should use the term “health” instead of “wounds.”

Event Card IV: The 1A and 1C sections of this card should read “The keeper places West in the Library. West is a named maniac with +3 wounds per investigator. When the keeper uses the Creature of Night action, West may move up to 3 spaces instead of 1.”

Wow, it's like they're not even trying.

I don't understand how stuff like this just keeps happening and, as a fan, I'm frustrated beyond belief. I imagine this is how Washington Capitals fans feel with Ovechkin right now.

Matt, this isn't a personal attack. But, let's be fair. A company with the seeming resources at FFG's disposal should be a tad more conscious of errors like this. People pay top dollar for most of these games, and, in the instance of Alchemy, it's beyond unacceptable to open a product rife with this many mistakes, a good sum of which were due to poor proofing. If anything, this is symptomatic of the company's penchant for churning out game after game, flooding the market with no apparent emphasis on quality control beyond visual aesthetic.

Point of fact, I myself have done quite a bit of proofing/editing on a freelance basis. Some of this work was done in the gaming realm, but most of which was for educational sources and corporate training guides. And while, inevitably, some mishaps made it through to print, blunders of any kind were career nullifying with most of these employers. I mean, after all, isn't this the expectation of someone tasked to handle editing? To say, hey it's not nearly as screwed up as some of FFG's stuff isn't a victory of any sort. Would the art department let an unfinished drawing make it to print that featured a character who was accidentally bereft of fundamental anatomical components, like a guy with no nose, or just floating around without legs? I see no difference. Success should be measured by how well something is done, not by how it is better than something that is easily appraised as poor.